As to this question: “To what kind of mind is it an injustice that an argument is rejected even if that argument could not have changed anything?” The answer to me is that the Bush v. Gore opinion, if you read it, was shrowded in an air of righteousness (on both sides). Neither side could step up and say, “look, this is a political decision, normally we wouldn’t touch this but for the sake of the country we must.” Instead they lie to the nation and say the Constitution demands it. That is just a lie. From both sides. And when the Supreme Court of the United States lies to the entire country in the process of deciding the next President – that is an injustice.

Now I just have to do a bit more research to make it completely automated (i.e., plug my iPod into my computer and it’s done when the iPod syncs in iTunes — no thought necessary other than subscribing initially — and it would be nice to automatically delete stuff too, but I know that’s probably asking too much). Off to research.

[And not to get off in a tangent that's probably meaningless anyway, but your remark about the blogosphere being more liberal than conservative is probably unprovable (but I'm not sure it matters anyway). I identify with your comments about not taking enough time to think things out because of multiple sources that will aid you in the direction you want to go. Take me for instance, on my own weblog, I haven't posted one thing of substance (really) since the election, and now, I'll probably simply do something of a roundup with, you guessed it, links to things that people have written before I was able to flesh anything out. Due to info overload? Perhaps. (That and not having much spare time lately.) But not necessarily stuff that I'm not thinking about already. Or at least I'd like to think it works that way.]

<grumble />